Phosphorus HotSpots in Crop Plants on the Farm: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Witold Grzebisz
,
Alicja Niewiadomska
,
Jarosław Potarzycki
,
Agnieszka Andrzejewska

Phosphorus resources, both in phosphate rocks and in the soil, are limited. However, effective food production is not possible without the use of P fertilizers. Recognizing and eliminating or at least ameliorating factors (hot spots) that interfere with the uptake and use of phosphorus (P) by crop plants is of key importance for effective use of both P and nitrogen (N) on the farm. Plants have developed many adaptation mechanisms to their environment, i.e., soil low in available phosphorus. The most important ones include the secretion of organic compounds into the rhizosphere and the association of plant roots with microorganisms. A classic example is mycorrhiza. These mechanisms can be used by the farmer to sequentially select plants in the crop rotation. The uptake of inorganic P (Pi) by plants from the soil is reduced by environmental (temperature and water) and soil factors (low content of available phosphorus, soil acidity, soil compaction). These factors are responsible for the growth and size of the root system. Mitigating these negative effects improves the efficiency of phosphorus uptake from the soil. The second group of critical factors, limiting both root growth and availability of phosphorus, can be effectively controlled using simple measures (for example, lime).

  • crop plants
  • farm
  • phosphorus uptake
  • phosphorus
  • phosphorus sources

1. Introduction

The human population is constantly growing, which consequently increases the demand for food. In 2050, according to current forecasts, the necessary increase in food production compared with 2010 will increase by 35% to 56% [1]. The order of crop plants contributing to global food security is (in %): cereals (49) > oils (12.5) > meat and eggs (9.5) ≥ sugar (9.0) > rubber crops (5.4) > fruits (3) [2]. In recent years, many concepts and even strategies have emerged to solve the problem of the continuously growing food gap, including a reduction in people’s demand for energy and protein, such as the concept of a “healthy diet” and “artificial meat”. However, the most realistic challenge for humanity is to reduce the amount of food waste [3][4].
Given the current conditions of life on Earth, attention needs to be focused on two realistic strategies to increase food production. The first, known from the beginning of human agricultural activity, comes down to an increase in the area of arable land. This strategy, seemingly simple, is difficult to implement because the potentially productive soils are in the tropics. The limitation in the use of rainforest soils, which occurs anyway, will be real and drastic climate change. Secondly, these soils require large investment, mainly due to a naturally low pH and high capacity to fix inorganic phosphorus (Pi) [5][6][7]. On such soils, in the second year after clearing the forest, 90% of the harvested yield depends on the use of mineral fertilizer and lime [8]. The second strategy, essentially intensive, assumes an increase in the yield of key crops that determine the global production of energy and protein. This set of crops includes mainly cereals (wheat, rice, and maize), legumes (soybean), and oil crops (oilseed rape, sunflower) [9]. The real yield increase for maize, wheat, rice, and soybean is much below target of 2.4% annually, currently reaching 1.6%, 0.9%, 1.0%, and 1.3%. For these values, global production would increase by 67%, 38%, 42%, and 55%, respectively, i.e., well below what is required to cover the food gap in 2050 [10].
The expected increase in plant production requires maintaining an appropriately high level of soil fertility. Phosphorus is the basis of soil fertility, being considered as a “Bottleneck of Life” in the food security strategy [11]. The yield-forming effect of P results from its metabolic and physiological functions in the plant. P is a component of several nucleotides and carriers of metabolic energy, e.g., DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), RNA (ribonucleic acid), FMN (flavin mononucleotide), FAD (flavin adenine dinucleotide), CoA (coenzyme A), ATP (adenosine triphosphate), ADP (adenosine diphosphate), NAD (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide), and NADP (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate) [12]. The primary function of P is its presence in organic particles that are carriers of genetic information, i.e., DNA. Without this particle, the organism could not reproduce, and therefore the plant would not produce fruits, for example, grains, or seeds [13]. However, for DNA particles to use their reproductive effect, the plant must take up a certain amount of P from the soil. Moreover, this process must occur within a precisely defined phase of the seed plant’s growth [14]. Uptake of nutrients from the soil requires the input of metabolic energy, the carrier of which is ATP [15].
A farm is a production unit in which usually more than one crop is grown. Monocultures such as oil palm or sugar can dominate in the tropics and subtropics [16]. In a classic farm, crops are grown in the field in a specific time sequence (growing season), termed as crop rotation [17]. Plants cultivated on the farm have different demands for P, taking into account soil resources and the required P fertilizer doses. For this reason, P management varies between crops within the year (growing season) and in subsequent growing seasons [18][19]. The effective use of the soil P resources must be adjusted both to the requirement of the most sensitive crop in the fixed crop rotation for a given field and to the content of available P in the rooting zone of this crop. Only the farmer, i.e., his knowledge and acquired skills, determine the effective control of P management, both on the farm and in the field. 

2. Mechanisms of Phosphorus Uptake

Phosphorus is taken up by plant roots from the soil solution in the form of H2PO4−1 ions (Pi), the concentration of which ranges from 1 to 100 µM. In the plant root tissues, its concentration is many times higher, ranging from 5 to 20 mM [20]. A Pi concentration below 10 µM in the growth medium is considered as critical for the growth of crop plants [21]. The uptake of Pi by a plant from the soil solution is a complex, multi-phase process. The two basic stages are:
(1)
 Passive—flow of Pi anions in the soil solution towards the plant root surface;
(2)
 Active—transfer of the Pi ions across the plasmalemma of the cortical root cell.
The potential of the soil to feed the crop plant with P results from:
(1)
 Pi concentration in the soil solution;
(2)
 Root absorption surface;
(3)
 Transport rate of Pi ions from the soil solution to the root surface;
(4)
 The rate of Pi ions’ incorporation into the plant’s metabolic processes.
The accumulation of Pi ions on the root surface depends on the rate of their diffusion (Id, µg cm−2 s−1) in the soil solution [22]. This process is subject to Fick’s law, according to which the rate of ions’ movement in the solution depends on both their concentration gradient (dc × dx−1, µg cm−3 cm−1) and the value of the diffusion coefficient (Deff, cm2 s−1):
I d = − D e f f × ( d c × d x ) − 1
A necessary condition for this process to occur is a plant, or more precisely, a plant root in the soil. The sufficient condition is the content of Pi ions in the appropriate concentration in the soil solution. The plant root is the factor that changes the initial concentration of ions in the soil solution, creating a concentration gradient toward the root and thus inducing their flow. According to the mechanistic model of P uptake by a plant root, the amount of the absorbed nutrient depends on the root surface area [23]. This plant’s characteristics are determined by the rate of root growth into the soil and its diameter. Therefore, one of the most important factors determining the P nutrition of a crop plant is the size of the root system, defined by the root density and the plant’s effective rooting depth. This trait of the crop plant is genetically determined, but at the same time, it shows a strong response to environmental (soil, water content, temperature) and physiological factors (nutritional state of the plant) [24][25]. Among the soil factors, the most important are the concentration of Pi in the soil solution and the value of its diffusion coefficient. The value of the Pi coefficient in the soil solution at field capacity is in the range of 10−9 cm2 s−1. For comparison, the N–NO3 coefficient is at least 1000 times greater and amounts to 1 × 10−6 cm2 s−1 [26].
Two aspects of Pi uptake by crop plants require special attention from the farmer. The first is the impact of soil moisture on the value of Pi coefficient. Variable water content during the growing season is a natural phenomenon. It affects most severely the topsoil, which is rich in P (at least compared with the subsoil). As a consequence, this soil layer becomes heavily overgrown with roots [27]. The decrease in water content in the soil, in turn, increases the contribution of capillary pores filled with air. These conditions lead to a decrease in the values of diffusion coefficients, the strongest for Pi. As a consequence, the amount of P reaching the plant root surface decreases (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Mobility and availability of inorganic phosphorus in the soil solution under optimal ((A) field capacity) and suboptimal water conditions ((B) water deficiency-induced precipitation by Al3+ or Ca2+); the red line indicates the direction of orthophosphate ion flow in the soil solution.
The seemingly small reduction in the water content from 27% to 22% resulted in a drastic decrease in the length of maize roots, consequently leading to a significant reduction in P uptake by plants [28]. The negative impact of water shortage on P supply to the plant can be at least partially mitigated by maintaining a higher content of available P in the soil solution. Most crop plants take up and accumulate large amounts of P during the initial growth phase, usually in optimal soil water conditions [29][30]. The high P uptake by the plant during this period, which is only apparently luxurious, increases its tolerance to water stress in the later stages of growth, which are crucial for yield formation. A classic example is maize. Phosphorus deficiency in the fourth (fifth) leaf stage, in which the structure of generative organs is formed, is reflected in the flowering stage [31]. This state is manifested by poor development or even the complete disappearance of the cob (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Drastic phosphorus deficiency in the early stage of maize development (A) leads to no or poor cob formation (B). (Source: Witold Grzebisz).
The second aspect of supplying a plant with P is related to the supply of nitrate nitrogen (N–NO3). This molecule behaves like a plant morphogen [32]. The decreasing content of N–NO3 in the growth medium stimulates the growth of main roots (primary roots, seminal roots) into new areas of soil and an accompanying reduction in the growth of lateral roots. Opposite effects are observed when the content of N-NO3 increases in the growth medium [33]. N-NO3 ions are very labile in the soil solution, so these resources are quickly depleted, forcing the plant to penetrate new areas of the soil, rich in both water and nitrates. As a result of these processes, the plant abandons previously exploited soil. As a consequence of these processes, the use of freshly applied phosphorus does not exceed 5% (maximum 20%). However, the actual use of Pi from the soil solution can reach even 60% [34][35].
The process of P uptake from the soil solution requires the plant to use metabolic energy, the main source of which is the ATP (adenosine triphosphate) molecule. Its basic components are P and N, so there is a close interaction of both nutrients at the primary level for the functioning of a living organism [36]. The paradox of this process is that the plant efficiently takes up Pi from the soil solution, provided it is in a good nutritional P state (Figure 3). The ion H2PO4−1 that is to be transported across the cytoplasmatic membrane must first be protonated {[2H+ × H2PO4−1]+}. This process requires energy provided by ATP [37]. A necessary condition for the stabilization of these processes is a constant, stable content of P in the cell cytoplasm. The P content in other compartments of the cell and plant organs is variable. The greatest variability occurs in the vacuole [12].
Figure 3. Hypothetical model of Pi ions uptake by a legume plant from soil, in a neutral soil reaction.

3. Response Strategies of Crop Plants to Pi Deficiency

Plants usually show a high level of adaptation to changes in P supply, from the molecular, through physiological, and finally morphological levels. Root epidermal cells, induced by a signal from the shoot, synthesize and release acid phosphatases into the rhizosphere. Enzymes from the PAPS (3′-Phosphoadenosine-5′-phosphosulfate) family operate in the soil at pH of 4 to 7.7 and in a wide range of temperature of 25–60 °C [38]. The secretion of acid phosphatases by roots of P-deficient barley plants into the rhizosphere is in principle greater than the number of intracellular phosphatases produced in shoots [39]. These enzymes hydrolyze Pi from organic soil P compounds [40]. Plants deficient in P also excrete into the rhizosphere other organic compounds, which may constitute 10–25% of total fixed carbon. The synthesis of PAPs by soybean and common bean roots is considered to be a tolerance mechanism to the low Pi concentration in the soil Pi [41]. Some plants, mainly cereals, including maize, oil rapeseed, alfalfa, and chickpea secrete organic acids in response to two factors, i.e., P deficiency and Al toxicity [41]. It is well recognized that Al cations, depending on the oxidation state, are active in Pi absorption or fixation, lowering their concentration in the soil solution. The root’s secretions are dominated by organic acids, mainly citric, malate, and oxalate (Table 1). The main geochemical role of these compounds is to solubilize Pi from Ca, Al, and Fe phosphates. Citric acid has the highest efficiency in releasing Pi from organic-Pi-esters [40].
Table 1. Diversity of organic acid produced by PSMs (phosphate solubilizing microbes).
PSM Isolates Organic Acids References
Pseudomonas Citric acid, succinic acid, fumaric acid, gluconic acid, 2-ketogluconic acids [42][43]
Bacillus sp. Citric acid, malic acid, succinic acid, fumaric acid, tartaric acid, gluconic acid [42]
Proteus sp. Citric acid, succinic acid, fumaric acid, gluconic acid [42]
Azospirillum sp. Citric acid, succinic acid, fumaric acid, gluconic acid [42]
Aspergillus Citric acid, gluconic acid, oxalic acid, succinic acid, malic acid, glycolic acid [44]
Penicillium sp. Gluconic acid, glycolic acid, succinic acid, malic acid, oxalic acid, citric acid [44]
Erwinia herbicola Gluconic acid, 2-ketogluconic acid [43]
Another mechanism of plant response to moderate P deficiency is progressive infection and symbiosis with mycorrhizal fungi [45]. The latter phenomenon does not include plants from the Brassicaceae and Chenopodiacae families [46][47]. Therefore, for optimal growth, these plants require soil with a pH in the neutral range, at least. In soil solution with a pH on the neutral/alkaline border, the P mineral called brushite dominates [47]. The hypothetical effect of a rhizosphere acidifying plant (families Brassicaceae, Fabaceae) is as follows:
C a H P O 4 + H + = C a 2 + + H 2 P O 4 − 1
This equation unambiguously states that the main form of P taken up by plants from the soil solution is the H2PO4−1 ions and not HPO4−2, as it often appears in some academic textbooks and/or scientific articles.
Mycorrhiza is a common phenomenon occurring between two kingdoms, plants and fungi, involving mutual symbiosis. Both ectotrophic and endotrophic (arbuscular) mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are important for plants’ growth and development [48]. This group of fungi belongs to the phylum Glomeromycota [49] and is present in over 90% of land plants [50]. AMF fungal hyphae germinating in the root cortex come into physical contact with the host plant. They elongate and grow intercellularly through appressoria, and penetrate the cortex root cells, where they form arbuscules [51]. At the same time, the fungus forms extracellular hyphae that grow into the soil, thereby increasing the root surface area. Their main function is the absorption of water and nutrients, mainly P and N [52]. The fungal hyphae are 100 times smaller in diameter than the smallest root and 10–20 times smaller than the diameter of the root hair. In drought conditions, when the hydraulic potential of the soil is very low, fungal hyphae participate in water uptake [53]. AMF have a key role in phosphate uptake particularly in P-deficient soils by mobilizing P from rock phosphate [54]. Hyphae exudates can decompose larger soil organic molecules, containing both N and P compounds [55]. The transfer of N from organic matter to plant tissues by AMF hyphae has been documented to increase plant biomass [56].
Severe P deficiency in a crop plant, i.e., P starvation, leads to a reduction in the total root system size [57]. However, it is assumed that in conditions of P deficiency below 1 µM in the growth medium, some plants form cluster roots (proteid roots), which are a specific superabundance of root hairs or a tertiary form of lateral roots. Moreover, most plants of these species do not form mycorrhizal associations. This type of adaptation mainly involves natural plants, and the classic examples are plants from the Proteaceae family. Among crop plants, cluster roots form on pumpkin, white lupine, yellow lupine, and macadamia. These roots excrete huge amounts of protons, carboxylates, and also acid phosphatases into the narrow zone around the root (around 1 mm). As a result of this dual root activity, Pi is released both from inorganic and organic P compounds [58][59].
Farmers should consider three practical solutions based on the P uptake characteristics of crops grown on the farm. The first concerns the type of plant’s response to P deficiency. Based on the response of crop plants to low P deficiency, it was found that in the group of plants with fibrous root systems, such as cereals, the morphological type of adaptation dominates. In contrast, legumes show a dominant physiological type of adaptation, involving the secretion of protons and organic acids into the rhizosphere [60]. In the case of cruciferous plants, three interacting types of adaptation should probably be considered. These plants can be classified as morphologically adapted as indicated by their large, extensive root systems [Table 1; [61]]. Moreover, the roots of these plants release organic compounds into the soil, in turn inducing the activity of soil microorganisms [62]. On the other hand, cruciferous plants are usually grown on neutral or alkaline soil. In such geochemical conditions, phosphorus is in forms unavailable to plants. To absorb P, a plant must acidify the rhizosphere [63]. As a consequence, legumes or cruciferous plants create a very favorable growth environment for the successor crop, which usually is cereal. Crop rotation, taking into account both groups of plants, is one of the most beneficial systemic solutions in P management on the farm.

4. Environmental Factors Controlling Phosphorus Uptake by Crop Plants

4.1. Temperature

The uptake of Pi from the soil solution and, thus, the growth and development of a crop plant are affected by many environmental factors [64]. Of these, the key ones are temperature and water. The soil temperature is usually lower than the air temperature, but its fluctuation has a significant impact on the content of water, which determines the supply of nutrients to the root surface [65]. Two temperature extrema are important to recognize the response of the plant’s root system, i.e., minimum and maximum. The root growth proceeds up to the optimal range of temperature for a given species [66]. As reported by Fonseca de Lima et al. [67], the optimum temperature for root growth of temperate cereals is in the range of 15–20 °C, for rice 25–28 °C, and tropical maize 25–35 °C. Extreme temperatures during the reproductive phase, i.e., during the final stages of yield formation, lead to a significant reduction in the grain weight [68].
Plants are most sensitive to temperature extremes during juvenile stages of growth because the root system is not well developed. Exposure of crop plants to low temperature stress (LTS: chilling temperature range of 0–15 °C) significantly reduces the main traits of the root system architecture (RSA). For example, wheat seedlings exposed for 14 days to a temperature of 4 ± 1 °C decrease their absorption potential for uptake of nutrients [69]. The key reason is the reduction in the root surface area. Tropical crops such as sugarcane are strongly sensitive to chilling stress. The drop in temperature below 4 °C results in root activity decrease in the range of 64–80% due to reductions in root length, root diameter, and root hair density, and also disturbance in root gravitropism [70]. The slowdown in the rate of root growth of plants exposed to low temperatures is due to the reduced accumulation of auxin in the root apex, in turn repressing the rate of meristematic cell division. At the same time, the increasing content of cytokinin suppresses the growth of roots. The root system for an optimum elongation rate requires high auxin transport to the root apex and at the same time, a low content of cytokinin [70][71].
The disturbance in both morphological and physiological traits of crop plants due to extreme soil temperatures results in significant reduction in water and nutrient uptake. The end effect is a drop in yield [72]. The impact of extremely high temperatures on the RSA results in (i) a reduction in the length of the primary root, (ii) reductions in the growth rate and the number of lateral roots, (iii) an increase in the number of the second-and third-order roots, which have also a larger diameter, (iv) a lower angle of new, emerging lateral roots, (v) inhibition of the number and length of shoot-borne roots (adventitious and nodal roots—maize for example), (vi) an increase in the number and length of root hairs [73]. The total reduction in the growth rate of the root system and its size results in a narrower root/shoot ratio, mainly due to a much stronger reduction in the shoot biomass compared with the root biomass. Moreover, every 10 °C increase in soil temperature results in the respiration rate doubling, leading to a strong loss of dry matter [74]. The increased temperature activates calcium channels in the cytoplasmatic membrane, in turn increasing the flow of Ca2+ ions into the cell and inducing heat shock transcription factors [75]. This is important information for farmers working with sandy soils, which are naturally poor in calcium. These negative effects of extreme temperatures can be counterbalanced by increasing the supply of water, including through irrigation and phosphorus fertilizer [76].

4.2. Water—Drought

In the classic hierarchy of yield-forming factors, water is considered the yield-limiting factor [77]. Water controls the plant’s life processes at various levels of its organization [78]:
(1)
 Cells: (i) water photolysis—water acts as a nutrient; (ii) a component of spatial structures of organic compounds, including proteins, carbohydrates, and fats; (iii) a component of the osmotic sap of cells;
(2)
 Tissues and organs: (i) connects cells to form tissues and then organs; (ii) determines the turgor of conducting cells (xylem); (iii) a critical component of assimilates transported in the phloem;
(3) 
Plant: controls (i) the optimum level of temperature through transpiration of water and thus the rate of metabolic processes, (ii) the movement of stomata during the circadian cycle, and (iii) CO2 uptake from the atmosphere.
Water flows in the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum according to the principle of decreasing water potential: from the soil (−0.03 to −1.5 MPa megapascal), through the plant root (−0.3 to −2.0 MPa), then arriving at leaves (−1.5 to −3.0 MPa), and finally to the atmosphere (−50 MPa) [79]. The movement of water from the soil to the plant root is induced by hydrostatic root pressure, forcing water to move from the root pericycle to the xylem. Root pressure requires the expenditure of metabolic energy and therefore occurs only in the youngest, not finally formed tissues [80]. For this reason, the plant’s water uptake depends on the potential and the physical properties of the growing roots to penetrate the soil. On the other hand, the physical properties of the soil (texture, structure, penetrance resistance) determine both the amount of water available to the plant and the conditions of root growth [81]. During the growing season, under natural rainfall conditions, the amount of water available is variable, increasing its non-homogenous distribution in the soil profile. In conditions of increasing water shortage, intensified by drought, the growth of lateral roots takes place mainly in the water-rich soil paths [82][83]. The mechanism of active search by lateral roots for water, called hydrotropism or hydro-patterning, is controlled by auxins in response to the difference in water potential in the roots. As a consequence, in dry parts of the soil body, the growth of lateral roots is drastically reduced. This phenomenon is called xerobranching [84]. The response of the plant root morphological traits to drought is deeply associated with the type of root system. The rooting depth is the most conservative RSA trait because it does not undergo changes in response to drought [81]. The most sensitive traits, responding negatively to drought regardless of the plant species, are the root length and root dry weight, whereas root hair length and root hair density show the opposite trend. Differences between key types of roots refer mainly to the root diameter. Plants with a tap root system show a clear response to water stress. As a result of water stress, the root/shoot ratio decreases, because the shoot biomass shows a much stronger reduction than the root biomass [84][85][86].
In plant production, the expected yield is influenced not only by the plant’s total water demand and its efficiency (transpiration coefficient), but mainly due to its supply during the critical phases of yield formation [87]. Too little water supply to the plant during this period leads to disruption of the yield-forming processes. In cereals, the maximum water depletion in the rooting zone should not exceed 40 (60)% in the period extending from the beginning of shooting to the beginning of flowering, while during the grain-filling period, it can even reach 70% [88][89]. Maize, despite a relatively low value of transpiration coefficient compared with cereals (270–400 versus 500–600 dm3 H2O kg−1 DW), is most sensitive to reduction in water content in the period from silking to the watery stage of kernel development (maximum water drop is 50%) [90][91].
Reduction in the root system size of crop plants under conditions of water stress, which is frequently concomitant with the thermal stress, must therefore lead to disruption in Pi uptake by crop plants. The meta-analysis by He and Dijkstra [92] showed a significantly higher reduction in P (−9.18%) than N (−3.73%) uptake by plants. The authors emphasized the significant impact of the length of the drought period and the role of drying–rewetting periods on N and P uptake by crop plants. In the authors’ opinion, short-term drought (<90 d) reduces N and P uptake more strongly than C assimilation by plants. The reduction in P uptake is due to the disruption of P flow towards the root, as well as the decrease in the content of Pi in the soil solution due to its precipitation and the decreased activity of microbes in the root rhizosphere [93]. This situation is especially dangerous for short-growing crops, especially when drought occurs during the period of intensive P accumulation [94].
Effective management of nutrients in world regions under seasonally changing weather conditions, including in-seasonal and irregular drought sequences, is difficult. At least two aspects need to be considered. The first, strategic one assumes maintaining a high content of available P in the rooting zone of cultivated plants, especially those sensitive to P supply during the critical period of yield formation. The second, tactical one concerns fertilizer treatments, assuming lower P uptake by plants in a dry season. In light of the strategy of sustainable P management, the question arises here whether an increase in P doses or the level of the soil Pi content can alleviate, at least partly, the effect of water shortage on crop yield. Increased doses of P under water stress in the critical period of wheat yield formation did not reduce but actually increased the yield gap, which doubled for the optimal P dose relative to the P control (0.81 → 1.65 g plant−1). However, the plant was sufficiently supplied with P, as evidenced by a linear increase in the P content in both shoots and grain. Wheat plants under water stress, regardless of the P dose, contained more P in both straw and grain. The key difference between well-watered and water-stressed plants was the number of grains per plant, which was lower in plants subjected to water stress [95]. This simple experiment allows us to formulate two general conclusions. The first is consistent with Körner’s hypothesis [96] that nutrient resources, in this case referring to P, accumulated in the pre-flowering period by the crop plant will not be used when the sink capacity is too low. The second conclusion indicates the need to create growth conditions for at least full exploitation of P resources in the plant. This is possible, provided the sink is large [35].
The long-term analysis of yields in temperate regions of the world indicates a specific year-to-year variability. After yield declines in a dry year, it is at least partially compensated in the subsequent year, provided that the weather conditions are better. The suggested yield compensation mechanism is quite evident in Poland [97]. For example, the potential yield of winter wheat in 2019–2021 was 9.71 t ha−1. In dry 2019, it decreased to 9.17 t ha−1, and in 2020, it increased to 10.19 t ha−1. In 2021, with standard weather conditions, it amounted to 9.77 t ha−1. Study on maize and soybean response to the severe drought in the Upper Mississippi River Basin (USA) during the period 1960–2006 showed yield reductions of 27% and 20%, respectively [98]. In the years with drought, the respective amounts of residual P were 11 ((ranging from 3 to 19) kg P ha−1) and 3 ((ranging from 0 to 9) kg P ha−1), for maize and soybean. The effect of land types, soil textural classes, and hydrologic groups was small. In normal years, the P carryover was much lower, amounting to 7 ± 1 kg P ha─1 for maize and 2 ± 1 kg P ha−1 for soybean.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/agronomy14010200

References

  1. Van Dijk, M.; Morley, T.; Rau, M.L.; Saghai, Y. A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 494–501.
  2. Year Book for 2009; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009.
  3. Alexander, P.; Brown, C.; Ameth, A.; Finnigan, J. Human appropriation for land and food: The role of diet. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 41, 88–98.
  4. Berners-Lee, M.; Kennelly, C.; Watson, R.; Hewitt, C.N. Current global food production is sufficient to meet human nutritional needs in 2050 provided there is radical societal adaptation. Elem. Sci. Anth. 2018, 5, 52.
  5. Gomiero, T. Soil degradation, land scarcity and food security: Reviewing a complex challenge. Sustainability 2016, 8, 281.
  6. Roy, E.D.; Richards, P.D.; Martinelli, L.A.; Coletta, L.D.; Machado Lins, S.R.; Vazquez, F.F.; Willing, E.; Spera, S.A.; Van Wey, L.L.K.; Porder, S. The phosphorus cost of agricultural intensification in the tropics. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 16043.
  7. Röös, E.; Bajželj, B.; Smith, P.; Patel, M.; Little, D.; Garnett, T. Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 47, 1–12.
  8. Stewart, W.M.; Roberts, T.L. Food security and the role of fertilizers in supporting it. Procedia Eng. 2012, 46, 76–82.
  9. Izumi, T.; Sakai, T. The global data set of historical yield of major crop 1981–2016. Sci. Data 2020, 7, 97.
  10. Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66428.
  11. Cordell, D.; White, S. Life’s Bottleneck: Sustaining the world’s phosphorus for a food secure future. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014, 39, 161–168.
  12. Marschner, P. Marchner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: London, UK, 2012; p. 649.
  13. Pereira, A.M.; Coimbra, S. Advances in plant reproduction: From gametes to seeds. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 15, 2933–2936.
  14. Grzebisz, W.; Diatta, J.; Barłóg, P.; Biber, M.; Potarzycki, J.; Łukowiak, R.; Przygocka-Cyna, K.; Szczepaniak, W. Soil Fertility Clock—Crop Rotation as a Paradigm in Nitrogen Fertilizer Productivity Control. Plants 2022, 11, 2841.
  15. Nicholls, J.W.; Chin, J.P.; Williams, T.A.; Lenton, T.M.; O’Flaherty McGrath, J.W. On the potential roles of phosphorus in the early evolution of energy metabolism. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1239189.
  16. Lima Viana, J.; Moretti de Souza, J.L.; Hoshide, A.K.; de Oliveira, R.A.; de Abreu, D.C.; da Silva, W.M. Estimating sugarcane yield in subtropical climate using climatic variable and soil water storage. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4360.
  17. Tanveer, A.; Ikram, R.M.; Ali, H.H. Crop rotation: Principles and practices. In Agronomic Crops; Hasanuzzaman, M., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 1–13.
  18. MacDonald, G.K.; Bennett, E.M.; Potter, P.A.; Ramankutty, N. Agronomic phosphorus imbalances across the world’s croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 3086–3091.
  19. Łukowiak, R.; Grzebisz, W.; Sassenrath, G.F. New insights into phosphorus management in—A crop rotation approach. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2016, 542, 1062–1077.
  20. Lambers, H. Phosphorus acquisition and utilization in plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 2022, 73, 17–42.
  21. Wang, Y.; Wang, F.; Lu, H.; Mao, C. Phosphate uptake and transport in plants: An elaborate regulatory system. Plant Cell Physiol. 2021, 62, 564–572.
  22. Barber, S.A. Soil Nutrient Bioavailability: A Mechanistic Approach, 2nd ed.; Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1995; p. 432.
  23. McKay Fletecher, D.M.; Ruiz, S.; Dias, T.; Petroselli, C.; Roose, T. Linking root structure to functionality: The impact of root system architecture to citrate enhanced phosphate uptake. New Phytol. 2020, 227, 376–391.
  24. Giehl, R.F.H.; Wiren, N. Root nutrient foraging. Plant Physiol. 2014, 166, 509–517.
  25. Lynch, J.L. Root phenotypes for improved capture: An underexploited opportunity for global agriculture. New Phytol. 2019, 223, 548–564.
  26. Nielsen, N.E. Nutrients: Bioavailability and plant uptake. In Managing Global Resources and Universal Processes; Fath, B.D., Jorgensen, S.E., Cole, M., Eds.; CRC Press: London, UK, 2020; pp. 501–509.
  27. De Sousa Nunes, R.; Gones de Sousa, D.M.; Goedert, W.J.; Zancanaro de Oliveira, L.E.; Pinheiro, T.D. Vrops; yield and roots response to soil phosphorus distribution resulting from long-term soil and phosphate fertilization management strategies. Front. Agron. 2021, 3, 757100.
  28. McKay, A.D.; Barber, S.A. Effect of soil moisture and phosphate level on root hair growth on corn roots. Plant Soil 1985, 86, 321–331.
  29. Ciampitti, I.A.; Camberato, J.J.; Murrel, S.T.; Vyn, T.J. Maize nutrient accumulation and partitioning in response to plant density and nitrogen rate. I. Macronutrients. Agron. J. 2013, 10593, 7830.
  30. Julia, C.; Wissuva, M.; Kretzschmar, T.; Jeong, K.; Rose, T. Phosphorus uptake, partitioning and redistribution during grain filling in rice. An. Bot. 2016, 118, 1151–1162.
  31. Subedi, K.; Ma, B. Nitrogen uptake and partitioning in stay-green and leafy maize hybrids. Crops Sci. 2005, 45, 740–747.
  32. Guan, P. Dancing with hormones: A current perspective of nitrate signaling and regulation in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1697.
  33. Luo, L.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, G. How does nitrogen shape plant architecture. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 4415–4427.
  34. Cordell, D.; Drangert, J.-O.; White, S. The story pf phosphorus global food security and food for thought. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 292–305.
  35. Grzebisz, W.; Szczepaniak, W.; Barłóg, P.; Przygocka-Cyna, K.; Potarzycki, J. Phosphorus sources for winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) during reproductive growth—Magnesium sulfate management impact on P use efficiency. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2018, 64, 1646–1662.
  36. Hasan, M.M.; Hasan, M.M.; Texeira da Silva, J.A.; Li, X. Regulation of phosphorus uptake and utilization: Transitioning from current knowledge to practical strategies. Cell. Mol. Biol. Lett. 2016, 21, 7.
  37. Maathuis, F.J.M. Physiological functions of mineral macronutrients. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2009, 12, 250–258.
  38. Bhadouria, J.; Giri, J. Purple acid phosphatases: Roles in phosphate utilization and new emerging functions. Plant Cell Rep. 2022, 41, 33–51.
  39. Ciereszko, I.; Żebrowska, E.; Ruminowicz, M. Acid phosphatases and growth of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars under diverse phosphorus nutrition. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2011, 33, 2355–2368.
  40. Shen, Q.; Wen, Z.; Dong, Y.; Li, H.; Miao, Y.; Shin, J. The responses of root morphology and phosphorus-mobilizing exudations in wheat to increasing shoot phosphorus concentration. AoB Plants 2018, 10, ply054.
  41. López-Arrendondo, D.L.; Leyva-González, M.A.; González-Morales, S.I.; López-Bucio, J.; Herrera-Estrella, L. Phosphate nutrition: Improving low-phosphate tolerance. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 2014, 65, 95–123.
  42. Selvi, K.B.; Paul, J.J.A.; Vijaya, V.; Saraswathi, K. Analyzing the efficacy of phosphate solubilizing microorganisms by enrichment culture techniques. Bioch. Mol. Biol. J. 2017, 3, 1–7.
  43. Kumar, A.; Kumar, A.; Patel, H. Role of microbes in phosphorus availability and acquisition by plants. Inter. J. Curr. Microb. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 1344–1347.
  44. Sane, S.A.; Mehta, S.K. Isolation and evaluation of rock phosphate solubilizing fungi as potential biofertilizer. J. Fertil Pestic. 2015, 6, 156–160.
  45. Garg, N.; Chandel, S. Arbuscular mycorrhizal networks: Process and functions: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 581–599.
  46. Vance, C.P. Plants without arbuscular mycorrhizae. In The Ecophysiology of Plant-Phosphorus Interactions; White, P.J., Hammond, J.P., Eds.; Springer Science + Business Media BV: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 117–142.
  47. Sharma, S.B.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Trivedi, M.H.; Gobi, T.A. Phosphate solubilizing microbes: Sustainable approach for managing phosphorus deficiency in agricultural soils. SpringerPlus 2013, 2, 587–600.
  48. Spatafora, J.W.; Chang, Y.; Benny, G.L.; Lazarus, K.; Smith, M.E.; Berbee, M.L.; Stajich, J.E. A phylum-level phylogenetic classification of zygomycete fungi based on genome-scale data. Mycologia 2016, 108, 1028–1046.
  49. Davison, J.; Moora, M.; Öpik, M.; Adholeya, A.; Ainsaar, L.; Bâ, A.; Zobel, M. Global assessment of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus diversity reveals very low endemism. Science 2015, 349, 970–973.
  50. Giovannini, L.; Palla, M.; Agnolucci, M.; Avio, L.; Sbrana, C.; Turrini, A.; Giovannetti, M. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and associated microbiota as plant biostimulants: Research strategies for the selection of the best performing inoculate. Agronomy 2020, 10, 106.
  51. Baum, C.; El-Tohamy, W.; Gruda, N. Increasing the productivity and product quality of vegetable crops using arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: A review. Sci. Hort. 2015, 187, 131–141.
  52. Augé, R.M.; Toler, H.D.; Saxton, A.M. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis alters stomatal conductance of host plants more under drought than under amply watered conditions: A meta-analysis. Mycorrhiza 2015, 25, 13–24.
  53. Etesami, H.; Jeong, B.R.; Glick, B.R. Contribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, phosphate–solubilizing bacteria, and silicon to P uptake by plant. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 699618.
  54. Begum, N.; Qin, C.; Ahanger, M.A.; Raza, S.; Khan, M.I.; Ashraf, M.; Zhang, L. Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in plant growth regulation: Implications in abiotic stress tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1068.
  55. Thirkell, T.J.; Cameron, D.D.; Hodge, A. Resolving the ‘nitrogen paradox’ of arbuscular mycorrhizas: Fertilization with organic matter brings considerable benefits for plant nutrition and growth. Plant Cell Environ. 2016, 39, 1683–1690.
  56. Péret, B.; Clément, M.; Nussaume, L.; Desnos, T. Root developmental adaptation to phosphate starvation: Better safe than sorry. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16, 442–450.
  57. Shane, M.W.; Lambers, H. Cluster roots: A curiosity in context. Plant Soil 2005, 27, 101–125.
  58. Abdolzadeh, A.; Wang, X.; Veneklaas, E.J.; Lambers, H. Effects of phosphorus supply on growth, phosphate concentration and cluster-root formation in three Lupinus species. Ann. Bot. 2010, 105, 365–374.
  59. Liu, D. Root developmental responses to phosphorus nutrition. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2021, 63, 1065–1090.
  60. White, C.; Sylvester-Bradley, R.; Berry, P.M. Root length densities of UK wheat and oilseed rape crops with implications for water capture and yield. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 2293–2303.
  61. Remus, R.; Pandey, D.; Lüttschwager, D. What regulates the rhizodeposition of winter oilseed rape during growth. Plant Soil 2022, 478, 283–310.
  62. Duan, X.; Jin, K.; Ding, G.; Wang, C.; Cai, H.; Wang, S.; White, P.J.; Xu, F.; Shi, L. The impact of different morphological and biochemical traits on phosphorus acquisition and seed yield of Brassica napus. Field Crops Res. 2020, 258, 107960.
  63. Ziadi, N.; Whalen, J.K.; Messiga, A.J.; Morel, C. Assessment and modelling of soil available phosphorus in sustainable cropping systems. Adv. Agron. 2013, 122, 85–126.
  64. McMichael, B.L.; Burke, J.J. Soil temperature and root growth. HortScience 1998, 33, 947–951.
  65. Kaspar, T.C.; Bland, W.L. Soil temperature and root growth. Soil Sci. 1992, 154, 290–299.
  66. Fonseca de Lima, C.F.; Klein-Vehn, J.; De Smet, I.; Feraru, E. Getting to the root belowground high temperature responses in plants. J. Exp. Bot. 2021, 72, 7404–7413.
  67. Hatfield, J.I.; Prueger, J.H. Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2015, 10, 4–10.
  68. Xu, H.; Hassan, M.A.; Sun, D.; Wu, Z.; Jiang, G.; Liu, B.; Ni, Q.; Yang, W.; Fang, H.; Li, J.; et al. Effects of low temperature stress on source-sink organs in wheat and phosphorus mitigation strategies. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 807844.
  69. Tiwari, M.; Kumar, R.; Subramanian, S.; Doherty, C.J.; Krishna Jagadish, S.V. Auxin-cytokinin interplay shapes root functionality under low-temperatures stress. Trends Plant Sci. 2023, 28, 447–459.
  70. Zhu, J.; Zhang, K.-X.; Wang, W.-S.; Gong, W.; Liu, W.-C.; Chen, H.-G.; Xu, H.-H.; Lu, Y.-T. Low temperature inhibits root growth by reducing auxin accumulation via ARR1/12. Plant Cell Physiol. 2015, 56, 727–736.
  71. Sadok, W.; Krishna Jagadish, S.V. The hidden cost of nighttime warming on yields. Trends Plant Sci. 2020, 25, 644–651.
  72. Calleja-Cabrera, J.; Boter, M.; Onate-Sanchez, L.; Pernas, M. Root growth adaptation to climate change in crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 544.
  73. Ben-Noach, I.; Friedman, S.P. Review and evaluation of root respiration and of natural and agricultural processes of soil respiration. Vadose Zone J. 2018, 17, 1–47.
  74. Mittler, R.; Finka, A.; Goloubinoff, P. How do plants feel the heat? Trends Biochem. Sci. 2012, 37, 118–125.
  75. Singh, S.K.; Reddy, V.R.; Fleisher, D.H.; Timlin, D.J. Phosphorus nutrition affects temperature response of soybean growth and canopy photosynthesis. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1116.
  76. Rabbinge, R. The ecological background of food production. In Crop Production and Sustainable Agriculture; Rabbinge, R., Ed.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 2–29.
  77. Ievinsh, G. Water content of plant tissues: So simple that almost forgotten. Plants 2023, 12, 1238.
  78. Chavarria, G.; Pessoa des Santos, H. Plant water relations: Absorption, transport and control mechanisms. In Advances in Selected Plant Physiology Aspects; Montanaro, G., Ed.; Intech Europe: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; pp. 105–133.
  79. Steudle, E. Water uptake by roots: Effects of water deficit. J. Exp. Bot. 2000, 51, 1531–1542.
  80. Kou, X.; Han, W.; Kang, J. Responses of root system architecture to water stress at multiple levels: A meta-analysis of trials under controlled conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1085409.
  81. Smucker, A.J.M.; Aiken, R.M. Dynamic root responses to water deficits. Soil Sci. 1992, 154, 281–289.
  82. Fromm, H. Root plasticity in the pursuit of water. Plants 2019, 8, 236.
  83. Cai, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Z.; Zheng, J.; Bai, W.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Feng, L.; Feng, C.; Zhang, Z.; et al. Morphological plasticity of root growth under mild water stress increases water use efficiency without reducing yield on maize. Biogeosciences 2017, 14, 3851–3858.
  84. Fry, E.L.; Evans, A.L.; Sturrock, C.J.; Bullock, J.M.; Bardgett, R.D. Root architecture governs plasticity in response to drought. Plant Soil 2018, 433, 189–200.
  85. Luo, Y.-Z.; Li, G.; Yan, G.; Liu, H.; Turner, N.C. Morphological features and biomass partitioning of lucerne plants (Medicago sativa L.) subjected to water stress. Agronomy 2020, 10, 322.
  86. Bodner, G.; Nakhforoosh, A.; Kaul, H.P. Management of crop water under drought: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 401–442.
  87. Al-Kaisi, M.; Broner, I. Crop Water Use and Growth Stages; CSA, No. 4.715; Colorado State University Extension: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2009; p. 4.
  88. Passioura, J. Increasing crop productivity when water is scarce—From breeding to field management. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 80, 176–196.
  89. Kang, S.; Gu, B.; Du, T.; Zhang, J. Crop coefficient and ration of transpiration to evapotranspiration of winter wheat and maize in a semi-humid region. Agric. Water Manag. 2003, 59, 239–254.
  90. Sah, R.P.; Chacraborty, M.; Prasad, K.; Pandit, M.; Tudu, V.K.; Chakravarty, M.K.; Narayan, S.C.; Rana, M.; Moharana, D. Impact of water deficit stress in maize: Phenology and yield components. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2944.
  91. He, M.; Dijkstra, F.A. Drought effect on plant nitrogen and phosphorus: A meta-analysis. New Phytol. 2014, 204, 924–931.
  92. Rouphael, Y.; Cardarelli, M.; Schwarz, D.; Franken, P.; Colla, G. Effects of drought on nutrient uptake and assimilation in vegetable crops. In Plant Responses to Drought Stress; Aroca, R., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 171–195.
  93. Rodriguez, D.; Goudriaan, J. Effects of phosphorus and drought stress an dry matter and phosphorus allocation in wheat. J. Plant Nutr. 1995, 189, 2501–2517.
  94. Dixon, M.; Simonne, E.; Obreza, T.; Liu, G. Crop response to low phosphorus bioavailability with focus on tomato. Agronomy 2020, 10, 617.
  95. Körner, C. Paradigm shift in plant growth control. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2015, 25, 107–114.
  96. Najewski, A.; Madajska, K.; Skrzypek, A. Preliminary results of cultivar yield in post-registration experiments. In Winter Cereals; COBORU: Słupia Wielka, Poland, 2023; p. 18.
  97. Meki, M.N.; Osorio, J.M.; Steglich, E.M.; Kiniry, J.R. Drought-induced nitrogen and phosphorus carryover nutrients in corn/sybean rotations in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15108.
  98. Garcia-Oliveira, A.L.; Chander, S.; Barcelo, J.; Poschenrieder, C. Aluminum stress in plants. In Recent Advances in Plant Stress Physiology; Yadav, P., Kumar, S., Jain, V., Eds.; Daya Publishing House: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 265–282.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback